MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Study of Ice Jam Formation Dynamics

2006· article· en· W2172166000 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan Healy, Faye Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cold Regions Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsIce formationDynamics (music)Flow (mathematics)GeologyMechanicsAtmospheric sciencesPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice jams pose a significant threat to human safety and property and represent one of the most dynamic of river ice processes. A key limitation in the advancement of knowledge of ice jam formation is the lack of quantitative data describing these dynamics, which is essential also for validation of advanced computational models. In this study, an experimental investigation of ice jam formation under steady carrier discharge was undertaken. Thus, unsteady effects were entirely due to the ice jam formation process itself. Quantitative data describing the variation in discharge, ice jam thickness, water level variation, and ice cover progression provides unprecedented data describing the dynamics of ice jam formation. While the processes of ice jam formation are indeed dynamic, the results of this investigation suggest that the analysis of ice jams formed under steady carrier flow conditions may be adequately handled by the usual steady flow ice jam stability relationships. The applicability of the popularly applied wide jam theory approach to modeling ice jams is further supported by this investigation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cold Regions EngineeringSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207